Whilst not a construction bod - I would hope that should this eradication programme come to fruition, that some form of ALARP would be adopted when assessing removal work required. It seems that in your example it would be grossly disproportionate to spend 'x' amount and involve considerable risk to achieve a relatively small positive outcome. As you say, you may well create more of a H&S issue trying to remove and replace the damp course than if you left it, with an asbestos management plan in place. I can't imagine this scheme would work - I suspect many would find it easier (although not ideal) to demolish and relocate as opposed to trying to remove. If you get any more info on this please do share.

Yebbut that's a request to consider thinking about the possibility of maybe working out what it might cost to implement an eradication plan on public buildings, which is a rather less definite proposal. (At least with respect to impact on the UK - parts of the document require things that the UK already required even then).

Even if "they" followed this through we would still be just moving it from one place to another. Unless we are going to blast it out into spce the hazard has not gone away.

The survey is whether IOSH should support the OSH All Party Parliamentary Group's proposal for eradicating asbestos. Pls note that the OSH All Party Parliamentary Group has already commended IOSH for its "No Time to Loose " campaign on occupational cancers.

The 'horse has bolted' on this one. It might cause more fatal occupational illness than anything else but this proposal is flawed on several levels. Quoting the bill document "All commercial, public, and rented domestic premises have to conduct, and register with the HSE, a survey done by a registered consultant which indicates whether asbestos containing material is present, and, if so, where it is and in what condition, to be completed no later than 2022". HOW is this workable? The only way to find ALL the asbestos is to do a demolition asbestos survey which involves pulling the fabric of the building apart. Just doing a visual management survey will only find the surface stuff so wont ensure safety of people working on the building. "Resources should be made available to the enforcing agencies to ensure that they can ensure that all workplaces and public places are complying with the regulation relating to management and removal, and that disposal is being done responsibly and safely" WHO is going to pay for this? it will mean higher taxes or claw back via FFI. Plus no doubt more borrowing on the never-never, especially to fund it in public buildings. They need to learn from the mistakes of the 'duty to manage' which came in 2004 when they put a timescale on it. EVERYONE wanted a survey! Joe-Bloggs goes on a P402 course on the monday, passes on the friday and on monday is calling themselves 'asbestos consultant/surveyor'. Result? An asbestos survey boom followed by loads of wasted money on shoddy 'surveys'. I am impressed by the sensible attitudes of those posting to date.

We are all aware of the historical use of ACMs and the legacy it has left. That said, in the great scheme of things I would have thought there are more pressing matters to be concerned about when it comes to health and safety. For public institutions like LAs, they have hundreds/thousands of properties which contain ACMs, probably many do not even know the total amount. The cost of removal would be prohibitive unless funded by central government.

This does sound a bit negative, not that I'm saying your arguments are wrong, shouldn't we be thinking of how it can be done other than expensive removal and disposal cost. From #1 I got the view that there was a group being set up to look at how it might be done. For instance we have moved on technology wise since the 1950's so can we actually use the waste asbestos in a way that will never release the fibres, but give us a "valuable" resource. That would cut cost dramatically as we currently dig a big hole and bury it. Perhaps we should think about the "how do you eat an elephant" way of looking at it. Possibly bring in that when the more harmful asbestos is found in any survey, then a ten year programme of removal is instigated. Tackle it a bit at a time, spread the costs over a long period of time. Can we keep ignoring the problem, we will run out of places to dig holes and bury it at some point. Chris

I agree with the comments posted, not only is there the issue around removal costs and further issues around exposure, where on earth (literally) would the waste go? Removal companies face the additional costs of health surveillance certification from GP's and licensing. Surely concessions should be made for these companies if this eradiaction bill came to fruition? I am unable to open a easy to read version of the bill with the link IOSH sent. Can someone send me a readable copy?

There is no current bill for this proposal in the 2015-2016 session. the only way it might be considered is via a Private Members Bill if at all. The chances of a Private Members Bill being given full scrutiny etc are remote. I participated in the survey--it is minimal survey, but ifyou feel strongly either way, please complete the survey! As far as I am concerned, there is no way this will go ahead unless the proposal is properly costed and timescales realistic. Eradicating in the next 100 years may be realistic, but not by 2023.

I think a flying pig will be easier to achieve than this pipe dream. Yes once all buildings of pre 2000 are demolished then we may come close to total eradication except in the hard landscaping. We will also have some very large tracts of contaminated landfill sites unsuitable for any future development. As for the IOSH support one would be talking of self powered vertical ascent on to moving wagons supporting a band. Someone thinks this would make good publicity methinks

I think if it's secure and safe where it is, it should just be left alone. Someone times it's more dangerous to up heave it. Just look at the facts:- https://www.pinterest.com/pin/436075176398257285/

Reasonably sure one of or maybe all the EU buildings in Brussels have problems with asbestos. Pretty sure when i was there about ten years ago staying nearby, that one of the buildings was having major works done to it, when they found the issue to be worse than they thought. No idea how new those building are they use.